interesting article
kutedaisy
Posts: 41 Member
Calories fuel our bodies, right? Actually, they don’t. A calorie is simply a unit of measure for heat; in the early 19th century, it was used to explain the theory of heat conservation and steam engines. The term entered the food world around 1890, when the USDA appropriated it for a report on nutrition, and its definition evolved. The calorie we now see cited on nutrition labels is the amount of heat required to raise 1 kilogram of water by 1°C. Here’s the problem: Your body isn’t a steam engine. Instead of heat, it runs on chemical energy, fueled by the oxidation of carbohydrates, fats, and protein that occurs in your cells’ mitochondria. “You could say mitochondria are like small power plants,” says Maciej Buchowski, PhD, a research professor of medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. “Instead of one central plant, you have several billion, so it’s more efficient.” Your move: Track carbohydrates, fats, and protein—not just calories—when you’re evaluating foods
0
Replies
-
I don't even know what to say...a PhD (in what, I wonder) that can't apply basic chemistry, biology and physics concepts.
In any event, it's generally considered proper to cite your source, even for ridiculous articles.0 -
Not really interesting at all.
This is stuff most MFPers have known for a long time. And tracking carbs, protein & fat is something MFP does automatically.
0 -
Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I don't even know what to say...a PhD (in what, I wonder) that can't apply basic chemistry, biology and physics concepts.
In any event, it's generally considered proper to cite your source, even for ridiculous articles.blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
Both of these.
Also, tracking macros is tracking calories, just by a different avenue.0 -
The researcher cited in the article was also cited in this:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/06/05/10695.aspxIn a separate study Dr Maciej Buchowski, of Vanderbilt University Medical Centre in Nashville, Tennessee, has found that when it comes to burning off a few extra calories, though no match for running, cycling or pumping iron, laughing out loud for 10-15 minutes a day burns 10-40 calories, the equivalent to a small piece of chocolate, depending on a person's body weight, which would equate to 2kg a year if you laughed every day.
That's a pretty small piece of chocolate.0 -
You might think that this was basic knowledge if you didn't read these forums.
I've never heard of this guy, but I'd say he probably knows his stuff.
https://medschool.mc.vanderbilt.edu/facultydata/php_files/show_faculty.php?id3=22610 -
And here's the article the OP cited:
https://www.yahoo.com/health/50-best-ever-weight-loss-secrets-from-slim-people-122118528.html
Readers can judge as to why the OP failed to include a link. ;-)
0 -
E=MC^2. Energy and mass are the same thing in different forms. Naturally taking in more energy (calories) will increase your mass. It's basic science.
Also, cool story bro.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.
With weight loss, calories are the main concern due to science. Nutritionally foods are different.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.
With weight loss, calories are the main concern due to science. Nutritionally foods are different.
I'm not sure what "due to science" means, but then I also don't see where the snipet posted in the OP disagrees with what you just posted, or that the snipet was necessarily talking about only weight loss.
Even the link to the Yahoo article wasn't about what was needed for weight loss.0 -
Steam engines also run on chemical energy, i.e. from breaking chemical bonds in the fuels that are burned. That is a red herring.
Unless one has a nuclear or a solar steam engine.0 -
Wow! Lot of people out there looking for a fight! Ok didn't mean to offend anyone by not posting my citation of where article came from. I just thought was interesting the history of why/how we starting counting calories.
Not all food react the same in our bodies and just trying to be helpful to remind people there is more to food than just the calories. two foods can be same in calories but one can more more nutrient rich than the other. It was meant to be an encouragement to grow in your journey to lose weight and gain health not just drop pounds.
0 -
I'm curious why OP sees it as "interesting." I would agree that the statement "[t]rack carbohydrates, fats, and protein—not just calories—when you’re evaluating foods" isn't terribly controversial. Most people probably naturally tend to eat an okay combination of macros, though, and it's not really necessary to get overly focused on hitting specific macro numbers.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.
With weight loss, calories are the main concern due to science. Nutritionally foods are different.
I'm not sure what "due to science" means, but then I also don't see where the snipet posted in the OP disagrees with what you just posted, or that the snipet was necessarily talking about only weight loss.
Even the link to the Yahoo article wasn't about what was needed for weight loss.
The article synopsis appears to be on how your body uses calories. When it comes to weight management, science has proven that a calorie is a calorie. In other words, eating 1500 calories in one macro profile and 1500 in another macro profile will not lead to different weigh loss results because the calories are the same.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.
@kutedaisy, are you speaking about weight management or nutrition?
Please link to the article.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.
With weight loss, calories are the main concern due to science. Nutritionally foods are different.
I'm not sure what "due to science" means, but then I also don't see where the snipet posted in the OP disagrees with what you just posted, or that the snipet was necessarily talking about only weight loss.
Even the link to the Yahoo article wasn't about what was needed for weight loss.
The article synopsis appears to be on how your body uses calories. When it comes to weight management, science has proven that a calorie is a calorie. In other words, eating 1500 calories in one macro profile and 1500 in another macro profile will not lead to different weigh loss results because the calories are the same.
I don't believe that is exactly true, but where does the OP disagree with that?0 -
Yes, the calorie used in FDA labeling is technically a kiloCalorie. That's not news - it was a decision made because it was thought the use population couldn't handle the kilo prefix or deal with measures being in the thousands.
The calories used in food labeling isn't determined by using bomb calorimetry as many people like to strawman. When Atwater first researched and set up the the basis of the modern calorie values, he was well aware that no all energy in food became directly available to a human.
For example, protein actually usually generates about 5.7 kCal/g when directly burned but digestive use of protein is not able to make use of all this energy and ends up with about 4.1 kCal / g in energy or less actually being available and this is why a typical value of 4 kCal /g is used for proteins. Similar effects are known about the digestibility of fiber.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Huh. To me, to say that a calorie isn't a calorie because we all burn them at different rates makes as much sense as saying a foot (measurement) isn't a foot because we all have different size feet and few are the length of an imperial foot.
What does that have to do with the OP, which does not say that calorie is not a calorie??
Well, she said to track macros first, which implies a calorie is not just a calorie.
I think that's personal inference. I infer that to mean that not all food reacts the same in our bodies and that calories should not be our sole concern.
With weight loss, calories are the main concern due to science. Nutritionally foods are different.
I'm not sure what "due to science" means, but then I also don't see where the snipet posted in the OP disagrees with what you just posted, or that the snipet was necessarily talking about only weight loss.
Even the link to the Yahoo article wasn't about what was needed for weight loss.
The article synopsis appears to be on how your body uses calories. When it comes to weight management, science has proven that a calorie is a calorie. In other words, eating 1500 calories in one macro profile and 1500 in another macro profile will not lead to different weigh loss results because the calories are the same.
this, exactly. Which has been proven (in a university study, no less) using nothing but junk food. As has been discussed ad nauseum before, it's not as if anyone should eating just one macro to lose weight, but it is entirely possible to do so. this is why calories are counted first, then macro balance considered second.0 -
If only there were some framework within which people could do this. Some overarching concept. Some sort of way to set goals or targets for macros. Then you could evaluate foods and decide to eat them if it fits your macros.Your move: Track carbohydrates, fats, and protein—not just calories—when you’re evaluating foods
0 -
And FYI, if one wanted, one could develop a steam or other combustion engine that ran on burning carbohydrates, fats, and protein. It is kind of how people have cars modified to run off grease trap leavings.0
-
Not all food react the same in our bodies and just trying to be helpful to remind people there is more to food than just the calories.
Nothing in the un-cited quotation you started this thread with says that.
Nor did your opening post say this...just trying to be helpful to remind people there is more to food than just the calories.
... or this ...two foods can be same in calories but one can more more nutrient rich than the other.
... or this!It was meant to be an encouragement to grow in your journey to lose weight and gain health not just drop pounds.
Maybe you thought you posted all of the above. You did not.-1 -
Cool story0
-
-
Eh... I'm tired, not going to read links... Atwater factor, different macros ... mumble.... mumble... small differences... doesn't matter to me, I still lose weight, that's all the matters in the end. I don't need 24th decimal place precision in projected outcomes to lose weight.
We really can lose sight of the forest for the trees doing this sort of stuff. I agree with lemurcat. Most conscientious dieters tend to find a decent macro distribution which balances their energy needs for their activity levels and cell repair all on their own. What that balance is varies from person to person and comes down to personal preference/need/medical necessity.0 -
active.com/nutrition/articles/5-calorie-myths-you-should-know
This is one source of one quote by the OP.
I expect most already know CICO knows refers to a closed loop system in a lab and does not relate that well to humans. The article does a good job as to why a calorie is not a calorie always when it comes to feeding them to humans.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »active.com/nutrition/articles/5-calorie-myths-you-should-know
This is one source of one quote by the OP.
I expect most already know CICO knows refers to a closed loop system in a lab and does not relate that well to humans. The article does a good job as to why a calorie is not a calorie always when it comes to feeding them to humans.
Wrong.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions